Read more.Complaints that Google's practises are anti-competitive could result in a big fine.
Read more.Complaints that Google's practises are anti-competitive could result in a big fine.
So I assume,they are going to look into other large companies like Apple too??
Apple, Microsoft, Google, Motorola, to name but a few of the big name technology corporations the EU has or is taking an, anti-competitive practice, interest in.
Unfortunately it seems a specific complaint, followed by length and costly proceedings is needed to persuade such companies to do, what many in Europe would believe, is the right thing.
Sorry, is there anyone out there with an ounce of common sense who wouldn't assume that someone like Google would give preference to their services over other people's? Are the EU commission (remembering that these are the same morons who are insisting on ACTA) assuming that Google should give equal billing (or worse - preference) to say - SkyDrive or Dropbox? What exactly are they complaining about?The two groups are currently in talks over anti-competitive practises, where Google is accused of prioritising its own products and services over those of third-party providers.
I just Bing'd "office suite" and the first entry (in the ad's section) was for Office 2010. Although when I Bing'd "operating system" the ad given was for OS X - which raised a smile. Similarly a Google search for "free online storage" (e.g. Google Drive) doesn't actually mention Drive - in which case I'm kind of confused what the objection is.
And before I get labelled as a "Google Apologist" - I'm not. I get uneasy about the amount of information that they're holding - but then again figure that this is the price of the (free?) services that I'm using from Google.
But does it?
The EU have stiffed Microsoft with hefty fines for having it's own browser installed, yet they haven't complained to Apple about coming pre-installed with Safari?
Seems a bit mental to me. I'm all for anti-competitive, but when your product comes bundled with stuff, you're not obliged to use it. Seems we're incapable of making the decision on our own, and need hand-holding by the EUC.
Diablo (Main PC): Corsair Air 540; Gigabyte Z77-D3H; i5 3570k @ 4.4Ghz; 16Gb Corsair Vengeance PC3-12000; 120Gb Samsung 840 EVO; EVGA 980 Ti Hybrid; 2x Dell U2414H; Windows 10 x64.
Imperius (VM Server): 2x Intel 5640, 64Gb RAM, 2x1Tb, 6x Intel NIC, VMware ESX 5.5
Tyrael (File Server): Synology DS410 w/ 4x HD154UI; 2Gb RAM; DSM 5.2
I'm agreeing BTW, not sure if I worded it badly...
Hmm, not to make apologies for Apple, but there was a difference. IE was (or should that be "is"?) tightly bound into the operating system - so much so that it's regarded as being part of the operating system.
Safari on the other hand, used to be merely an app, and as such could have been deinstalled (in favour of something else) without too much hassle. These days - so I've read - Apple's gone the Microsoft route and Safari is now an OS component, so other apps will/can fail if you deinstall it.
In which case, maybe you're right - if Microsoft get slapped down by the EU for doing this, then how come Apple's not getting hit too?
It seems to me most obvious way of handling this would be publicly accusing EU commission itself for preferential practices. A lot of stench seems to have come out of that office of late and I don't think many of us would cry after it if its influence was slightly crippled by an independent overseeing body. Would that be possible (makes sense?) or is this just another one of those paper pushing offices under external control no one really knows who to hold responsible should problems arise and, even if it gets reorganized, faceless puppeteers behind them and holding all the strings wouldn't really change? Or did I drink too much coffee tonight and am getting slightly paranoid and their plans really are to (progressively) make ALL the companies conform with EU anti-trust, anti-competitive laws and regulations, or else? LOL
I'll admit to being very "anti" the Commission since, to me at least, it appears to be some kind of unelected "Star Chamber" that can, when the mood takes it, make arbitrary decisions based on lord knows whatever basis. For example, the EU parliament says "no/non/nein/..." etc to ACTA then the commission effectively turns around and says "you're wrong, we're doing it". Ehhh!
And I'll disagree with the "even handed" compliment that you pay them - far from it, since it seems to me that they're very selective about whom they prosecute - Microsoft and now Google are fair game, but Apple and BT are untouchable.
Stupid thing is, and here I'll admit to double standards, while I abhor the Commission as a body, I've got some respect for some of the individual commissioners - e..g. Neelie Kroes for example - who seems to be indefatigable in persecution of big business on behalf of us poor, downtrodden, consumers.![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)